Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023
Comparison of gum elastic bougie-guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM versus the conventional method in achieving oesophagal patency - A randomised comparative study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kerai Sukhyanti, Prathap T H, Bhatt Garima, Gaba Prachi, Gupta Lalit, Saxena Kirti N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The passage of a Ryle's tube through the drain port on the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) ProtectorTM has been reported to be arduous despite the larger gastric channel. There are no studies on the evaluation of the guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM to achieve adequate gastrointestinal drainage function.
METHODS: This randomised study included 132 patients who underwent surgery under general anaesthesia. The gum elastic bougie (GEB)-guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM (group I) was compared with the conventional method (group II), and the alignment of the tip of the drain tube with the oesophagus was assessed. The insertion characteristics of the device, accuracy of LMA ProtectorTM placement, haemodynamic parameters, and post-operative airway morbidity following the insertion of the device were also compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The first-attempt success rate for the placement of LMA ProtectorTM and the patency of oesophagus was higher in group I patients than in group II (100% vs 84.8%; P < 0.001). However, the time taken for device insertion and associated haemodynamic changes were significantly longer in group I. The patients in group I had better visualisation of laryngeal structures. The GEB-assisted insertion of LMA ProtectorTM resulted in less incidence of blood staining at the cuff of the device.
CONCLUSION: GEB-guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM achieved better oesophageal patency than the conventional insertion method. This method also had higher first-attempt success at the placement of the device and was observed to be less traumatic.
METHODS: This randomised study included 132 patients who underwent surgery under general anaesthesia. The gum elastic bougie (GEB)-guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM (group I) was compared with the conventional method (group II), and the alignment of the tip of the drain tube with the oesophagus was assessed. The insertion characteristics of the device, accuracy of LMA ProtectorTM placement, haemodynamic parameters, and post-operative airway morbidity following the insertion of the device were also compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The first-attempt success rate for the placement of LMA ProtectorTM and the patency of oesophagus was higher in group I patients than in group II (100% vs 84.8%; P < 0.001). However, the time taken for device insertion and associated haemodynamic changes were significantly longer in group I. The patients in group I had better visualisation of laryngeal structures. The GEB-assisted insertion of LMA ProtectorTM resulted in less incidence of blood staining at the cuff of the device.
CONCLUSION: GEB-guided insertion of LMA ProtectorTM achieved better oesophageal patency than the conventional insertion method. This method also had higher first-attempt success at the placement of the device and was observed to be less traumatic.